About your Search

20130211
20130211
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
secretary former senator chuck hagel at his confirmation hearing i think it is fair to say you gave him a real going over about his opposition about the iraq troop surge in 2007. let's take a look at that. >> were you correct or incorrect? yes, or no. >> my reference to -- >> can you answer the question, senator hagel. the question is were you right or wrong? >> chris: i got a question for you. how are you going to vote on the hagel nomination? >> we still have some more information but again that wasn't an academic discussion i was having with senator hagel. we were losing the war in 2006 and when the president came around president bush who i had been very critical of came around and sent david petraeus and the surge we succeeded in iraq. now, because of the obama administration actions afterwards we are losing and badly unraveling. the fact is if we hadn't done that more american lives would have been lost unnecessarily. so for then senator hagel to say well, he will let history be the judge. he was there and involved and i'm sure he is wrong and he knows he is wrong on the basis of
at the consulate on the night of september 11th. >> i don't believe we should let brennan or hagel be confirmed until the white house gives us an accounting. if the president ever calls anybody on the phone to help these folks? what did the president do? the families need to know the american people need to know. >> it is not unwarranted to stop for attempt to try and stop the secretary of defense or the cia director. we need chuck hagel who is qualified to be the secretary of defense. >> president obama nominated chuck hagel to goibecome the ne secretary of defense and brennan to become the next cia director. he will not filibuster but vows to vied track until he gets more information. he tells fox news that he is threatening to filibuster chuck hagel if necessary to prevent his confirmation. we heard cutting hours to avoid the cost of obama care. now faith is doing the same thing. lauren simonetti always unintended consequences, right? >> since working 30 hours a week is considered full-time under the new healthcare law more employees are getting 29 hours this way the employers save money by
says he will block confirmation of chuck hagel for defense secretary and john brennan for c.i.a. until they clear up issues ranging from the terrorist attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi to enhanced interrogation techniques for suspected terrorists. i don't think we should allow brennan to go forward for the c.i.a. directorship, hagel to be confirmed to secretary of defense until white house gives us an accounting. >> democrats are angry and worried. >> what is unfortunate is the account to politicize an issue. they need to be confirmed. >> hagel is not for defense secretary faces committee vote wednesday. some republicans, though not mccain threatened to walk out in protest. hagel and brennan nomination could be put on hold before a final floor vote. should either nomination get that far they could face filibusters. >> i want 60-vote margin. you don't have to fill buster to get. they would threat on the call 60-vote margin. >> the president's only new confirmed secretary is john kerry replacing hillary clinton at state. but kerry was the president's second choice, only after u.n.
. on their face i don't expect the senate to reject mr. brennan for cia chief, and despite mr. hagel's troubles in the confirmation hearing, i don't expect he will be blocked as a matter of substance or his performance in the hearings. but it is true that if a couple of senators decide to hold things up because they want more answers, it gives the administration a choice. it can either go to bat against the republicans and say they're being unreasonable, they're being political, they need to back down, or they could make a decision we just want to get this thing through, let's try to give them enough information to satisfy them and get it over with. jon: a mouthpiece for the administration in this situation said these are critical national security positions, and individual members -- meaning senators -- shouldn't play politics with their nominations. but isn't that what happens at every nomination, the senators trot out their list of wants, you know, information wise from the administration and use some leverage? >> yes, i mean -- well, jon, that's what advise and consent ultimately means. it
picks. chuck hagel for defense secretary and john brennan for the head of the cia. senator graham now demanding more answers about what happened in benghazi. and the ranking republican on the senate armed services committee, oklahoma senator jim inhofe says one option is to filibuster, delay those nominations. >> i would threaten to cause a 60 vote margin, yes, i will, do it that way. >> harris: the white house now firing back saying outgoing defense secretary leon panetta has already testified at length about benghazi just last week and lawmakers should not play politics with critical nominations. steve centanni live with the news from washington, steve? >> reporter: yeah, there could be an attempt to hold up two important nominations. until the white house answers more questions about benghazi. now, senator lindsey graham want today know if the president worked out personally to libyan leaders during that in benghazi. he seaid that hagel and brennan could be side track until they get the answers they want. stopping short of a filibuster, graham has concerns whether the president did
, john brennan and for defense secretary, chuck hagel unless the president provides more information on the september 2012 attack on our consulate in benghazi, libya. listen to this. >> how could they say after panetta and dempsey said it was a terrorist attack that night, how could the president say for two weeks after the attack it was the result of a video? how could susan rice come on to show to say there is no evidence of a terrorist attack when sick tear of defense and joint chiefs knew that that night? i think that was a misleading narrative three weeks before our election. >> he is hanging onto this in a big way. joining me, kt mcfarland, fox news security analyst . what do you think he is saying, kt? >> what he is talking about is the most significant part. and that is the president had nothing to do with this. that the secretary of defense and the chairman of joint chiefs of staff now said at the beginning of this attack american embassy under attack, american ambassador gone missing they told the president and that was it. the president had nothing more to do with it. mart
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)